Sorry Mike, I should have said I don't see the purpose of the
criterion, rather than the value of.. The question was a matter of
clarity, not of value. Rob Lanphier kindly clarified the criterion
in another posting (thanks Rob!), so my response here will be limited.
I see now that the SFC
I said this before, but it deserves emphasis:
Condorcet's criterion only applies when everyone votes sincerely. SFC
applies if the majority to whom it makes its guarantee vote sincerely. In
other words, it stipulates only that you and a majority that you're in vote
sincerely, while
Rob--
I've told why I claim that FBC is essential for a political voting system,
and that MDDA meets FBC but BeatpathWinner fails FBC.
I've just told why SFC is better than Condorcet's Criterion. Sure, for
sincere-voting committees and organizations, which don't really need FBC as
badly, I
Hi Mike,
I could be convinced that MDDA or similar system is better than a
full-on Condorcet system. The one major objection I have is the lack of
truncation resistance - I really hope we can find a system that
encourages a full ranking. It seems that MDDA would tend to discourage
ranking
Ken:
You say:
Sorry Mike, I should have said I don't see the purpose of the
criterion, rather than the value of..
I reply:
That's perfectly ok. Don't apologize for that. It's perfectly valid for you
not see the value of a criterion, just as it's valid for you not to see the
purpose of a
